Appellant appears to be urging us to construe the claims as requiring the claimed “bonding member” to have those characteristics, but we note that the Specification does not use the above description as a definition, and thus, we decline to adopt such a construction, because “a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” See SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Superguide Corp. v. Direct TV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 69 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2004) 2111.01